Amy casts Alhammarret, High Arbiter, but forgets to have Nicole reveal her hand when it enters the battlefield. Several turns later, Nicole realizes the error and calls a judge. What do you do?

It's certainly a GRV/FTMGS infraction/penalty. As to fixing the problem, I believe this falls under the additional remedy for GRV:

If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.

I would have them reveal and make a decision now.

The failure wasn't simply a failure of making a choice, but a failure to reveal and then make a choice, so I don't think the partial fix applies.

I think this is a GRV/FtMGS and “please be more careful in the future”.

Is there grounds for this being a double GRV? The error was Nicole not revealing their hand when an ability told her to do so. Or is Amy forgetting about it enough to let Nicole off the responsibility of carrying out the action?

GRV/FtMGS - warnings for both but no fix or backup.

I wouldn't apply the reveal (this isn't a part of the default fixes) and as a choice can only be made from the cards that were in hand at the time I'd need to back up (no way) to do this, so no choice can be made as the default fix requires a ‘legal choice’ which isn't possible.

I don't think this can be a double GRV either as that requires that

Originally posted by [b:

IPG]a player takes an action called for by an effect controlled by his or her opponent, but does it incorrectly

and in this case no action was taken at all, not an action taken incorrectly.

Concerning possible fixes, - the player did not, technically, make an illegal choice or fail to make a choice; the choice is made from among the cards revealed, and it is legal to choose nothing if nothing is revealed (this can happen without there being an error if the opponent has no cards in hand, for example). Nothing was revealed, so the choice of nothing is a legal choice.

So, there is the GRV of not revealing the hand, there is no applicable partial fix, and it's too far to back up.

Warnings all round* and play on.

(* Personally I think double GRV, but if it's not that, certainly GRV/FtMGS)

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

Concerning possible fixes, - the player did not, technically, make an illegal choice or fail to make a choice; the choice is made from among the cards revealed, and it is legal to choose nothing if nothing is revealed (this can happen without there being an error if the opponent has no cards in hand, for example). Nothing was revealed, so the choice of nothing is a legal choice.

James, the “no reveal happening” is the result of a GRV/FTMGS, so we can't say the choice of nothing was “legal”. Also, on resolution of Alhammarret's replacement effect, Amy MUST chose a card that matches the conditions (non-land). It's the same when you Thoughtseize your opponent and see 3 lands and 4 Loxodon Smiters; you must chose one of the 4/4s without enjoying the end result.

We have a default fix we can apply, as Nathaniel mentioned:

Nathaniel Lawrence
It's certainly a GRV/FTMGS infraction/penalty. As to fixing the problem, I believe this falls under the additional remedy for GRV:

If a player made an illegal choice (including no choice where required) for a static ability generating a continuous effect still on the battlefield, that player makes a legal choice.

I would have them reveal and make a decision now.

I am uncomfortable with different cards possibly being selected since the sphinx has been in play (several turns=new cards), but I believe this default fix matches how current policy handles the situation.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (July 13, 2015 08:04:31 AM)

Originally posted by Jeff S Higgins:

Also, on resolution of Alhammarret's replacement effect, Amy MUST chose a card that matches the conditions (non-land). It's the same when you Thoughtseize your opponent and see 3 lands and 4 Loxodon Smiters; you must chose one of the 4/4s without enjoying the end result.

The condition is not “nonland”, it is “nonland card revealed this way”. If nothing meets those criteria, then you can legally choose nothing. It's the same when you Thoughtseize your opponent and see 3 lands and nothing else ;)

The “choice” is legal, even though it is the result of a GRV; something otherwise legal only being able to occur due to a prior GRV happens all the time. If Player A casts a Bear Cub using 2 blue mana, then later PLayer B Bolts the Bear Cub, the fact taht the Cub was cast illegally does not render the Bolt illegal also. In the Alhammarret case, the two events are rather closer together, but it is still technically a legal choice of nothing. it is, as it were, corner-case-legal.

Personally, I do prefer the choose-now fix, but from a precise reading I don't think the current policy partial fix applies (per the above).

Isn't the interpretation that the default fix doesn't apply contingent on us interpreting the replacement effect as two separate “actions” rather than one? Or through us understanding this as a new card where written policy applies so poorly we don't want it to apply.

Because if we read it as one ability which requires you to make a choice, should we treat it differently because it includes something other than just the choice? After all, the IPG states “making no choice where required”. The ability requires you to make a choice.

Citing what we do when you're required to make a choice when no legal choices exist doesn't seem to me like an argument that the default fix doesn't apply. It seems to me to exist to solve just what it solves, not this :)

From my point of view: default fix apply only, when whole infraction falls into specified category.
In this case infraction is “not revealing and not choosing”, not “fail to do choose”, so we cannot apply default fix at all.

Why is this a GRV and not a missed trigger? It sounds to me like the problem is not an incorrect resolution of the ability, but rather forgetting the ETB trigger entirely.

I would rule missed non-detrimental trigger. No penalty. No fix. Please continue playing.

Because it's a replacement effect and not an etb trigger :)
Den 13 jul 2015 18:23 skrev “Nathen Millbank” <

From Alhammarret:
As Alhammarret, High Arbiter enters the battlefield, each opponent reveals
his or her hand. You choose the name of a nonland card revealed this way.
Your opponents can't cast spells with the chosen name (as long as this
creature is on the battlefield).


This is not a triggered ability. It is a replacement effect that replaces
entering the battlefield with entering the battlefield slightly
differently, similar to Voice of All or Clone or Stomping Ground.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Minnesota

Nathen: Alhammarret, High Arbiter's ability is not a trigger, is a
replacement effect as per CR 614.1c

//DLI

Derp. You're right. “As… enters the battlefield” is a replacement effect. Guess I need to RTFC.

Edited Nathen Millbank (July 13, 2015 11:31:26 AM)